On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:48:16PM +1000, Mark Constable wrote: > On 16/04/12 21:57, DTNX Postmaster wrote: > > I would not bother with prettifying headers or SMTP transaction > > output that is generally only seen by automated systems, > > It's mainly for "vanity" virtual hosting so our clients can be > assured they have their own fully branded mail service.
I'm going to ++ Jona's comment. The quest for the perfect headers is not worthwhile. Who reads them, anyway? > More importantly, with the -o myhostname=domain1.com they can fully > pass any hardfail SPF test, and of course if they get on a blacklist > it does not affect other clients on the same server so there are > tangible benefits to this "vanity" branding. Note as Wietse pointed out, that changing myhostname in a smtpd instance can have unanticipated side effects. $myhostname is used in numerous default settings. > > but if there's a business reason why you would need this, have > > a look at the multi-instance documentation; > > http://www.postfix.org/MULTI_INSTANCE_README.html > > We want to run 100s, if possible 1000s, of these setups on a single > server and I fear (but no evidence) that the above example of > separate postfix processes won't scale. That's aside from the > configuration nightmare compared to managing a single config file. It scales as well as any scheme for the perfect headers, and in fact, it's the only sure way to make it happen, other than to administer completely separate mail servers for each domain. Be sure to price this service accordingly. Then see what happens to vanity. :) > Is any here using a similar method to what I outlined? The quest for the perfect headers regularly comes up on this list. The seekers are always advised against it, as you were. -- http://rob0.nodns4.us/ -- system administration and consulting Offlist GMX mail is seen only if "/dev/rob0" is in the Subject:
